The National tribune., 1887-02-03

propositions which have been made IN the
Senate which, think. would meet the hearty
concurrence OF this body, with scarcely any
division, making special provisions in regard
10 particular cases Of disability, and among
Others some provision 10 allow arrears Of PEN
slons 10 persons who have lost an arm or a leg,
or who have become blind or otherwise disabled.
For such cases suitable provision has not been
fully made. Bills are now pending before the
Committee on Pensions which would provide
for them properly. / introduced bill the
other day which / thought was just and
right and would receive the vote Of every
generous-mlndcd man. 10 proposed 10 eX-
tend the present rate Of pensions for the
loss Of an arm OF a leg back TO the date OF
disability in order TO cover 10 some extent the
sutierings and disabilities that such Union sol
diers have endured. There is no reason why
the same principle should not be applied to
those who have become blind or deaf or who
have suffered disability equivalent TO the loss
Of a leg or an arm. There is no provision OF that
kind in this bill.
Then there is another demand that sooner or
later must be acted upon by the Senate. That
u.s. TO what extent arrearages should be granted
for claims that have been filed since the LIST Of
July, 1850.
When the Mexican pension bill was before
the Senate two years ago an amendment was
adopted 10 grant 10 Union soldiers pension
alter they had arrived at the age OF OF years.
An amendment was offered by the Senator
from Kansas Mr.. ingalls, proposing TO repeal
the restriction limiting srrearages of pensions
10 applications made prior 10 July j, looO, and
allowing all persons TO claim pensions from the
date of disability. without respect 10 the time
Of filing of their applications. i believed at
that time that this was not wise provision. 1
voted against il, i spoke against 10, and no
doubt contributed, TO some extent, at least by
my vote, 10 prevent that amendment being IN
grated upon the Mexican pension bill. it did
not have any effect, because the bill itself
failed on account OF other differences be-
tween the two Houses. But j became thor
Oughly satisfied afterwards, in conversation
with many good soldiers in the Union army,
and especially with those who had had the
benefit OF arrears Of pension. who had filed APP
plications In time TO avail themselves OF that
privilege became thoroughly satisfied that
the restriction as il stood was an unjust one
and excluded some of the most worthy and de-
serving cases from the relief granted under the
pension laws.
As i am never ashamed to change my opin-
ion and TO express that change at any time
when i find am wrong as we are all iallible,
when i was called TO an account by my con-
stituents. not in an offensive but a friendly
way, j did examine the arguments for and
against repeating that restriction. i became
satisfied that an arbitrary Limitation by date
an unjust restriction, and that the same relief
and rule ought TO be applied TO all pensioners,
whether they are eager and prompt to demand
their pensions, or whether they put of their
application in the hope that they would not have
TO appeal TO the bounty Of the Government.
i became satisfied that in that vote i was
wrong, and before my constituents two years
ago said so.
And now, sir, am willing and anxious to
hat nj lodi Il ipr
for an opportunity TO remove the Limitation
upon arrears of pensions and 10 apply the same
rule 10 all applications, whether filed before or
after July i, 1850.
BY the legislation Of the present Congress we
have passed the Mexican pension bill. That
bill has become law and il gives to every
body who served for 60 DAYS in the Mexican
war pension of IS month, whether disabled
or not. That is in harmony with the provis-
ions made for the Revolutionary soldiers and
the soldiers Of the war Of 1872. That is agreed
upon. j do not see, therefore. why il is that
provision is made in this bill for the Mexican
war soldiers, because the bill that has become
law gives TO every one Of them, whether disa-
bled or not, pension of IS month.
Mr.. Teller (Colo.):
am willing TO vote for the hill because am
ready myself TO increase the pension of every
soldier in the United States who has a total
"a IL 4 i
would not vote for the bill, for il is putting, in
my judgment, the soldier who cannot trace his
disability on plane little higher than the
other. In other words, where he gets IS
month the soldier under this will get So L
do not know but that the soldier who can
prove his disability as the result OF his SER
vice may possibly take advantage of this bill.
II is certainly evident that the bill has been
crudely drawn and lily considered.
The nrOyiSiOn in the 10Th lime of gppfinn .
would probably allow tHssoldier to elect; but
do not believe il will ever be possible for the
Pension Office 10 divide this pension into s.
and 81 for half inability. IL must be either Sl2
or not anything at all in my judgment.
IL thought that ii would be confined to
people who are totally disabled from manual
labor, unable 10 do anything, then / would not
vote for the bill, not because that class of SOL
diers should not be taken care Of but because
there is very limited number Of that class of
soldiers and that is not what the public senti-
ment has demanded The public sentiment of
this country demands that a soldier who has
served his country well-and / do not care
whether he served it in the Mexican war or
Indian war or in the last war-shall not be an
object OF charity. The people Of the United
States, with one sentiment on that subject, be-
lieve that the presence Of a soldier in a pauper
home, save and except the homes established
especially for that class Of men, is a disgrace to
the American people.
/ do not care myself even If the man who
fought for his flag in the Mexican war may
have forgotten his allegiance 10 that flag;
am prepared myself TO forget his misconduct,
and when he is in distress, rather than 60 see
him in a paupers home, / would repeal that
section which has heretofore prevented him
from receiving pension. L believe that when
we can sit in this body with men who led great
armies, and who conducted the civil admins
tration OF that great rebellion, and when every
place Of public profit and honor isopen 10 them,
IL is too late 20 say that the man who had
bravely followed his flag in the Mexican war
and who followed these gentlemen in the late
rebellion, shall because Of his later conduct be
precluded from having the bounty that the
Government proposes TO give TO the soldier who
served In the Mexican or any other war.
Mr.. Van Wycl1 (Neb.):
Mr.. President fail 10 see in this bill that
there is any apology needed for its provisions
or that there is just cause for criticism upon its
terms. IL Is plain upon its face. The PROPOSE
tion in this bill is not new feature because
on the 18th day of May last when the Senator
from Connecticut says bill was passed by the
Senate, the effort was then made in this body
10 incorporate the very provisions which forms
the House bill. j remember that / desired
then, by an amendment which / offered, 10
have a uniform rate Of pension for all these
cases, but the Senate. in its judgment after dis
cussion and voting, thought differently. / said
in my remarks OF May 10, 1856, that if person
was unable 10 earn a complete livelihood il was
total disability; il was complete no matter
whether, as ] said, il was from asthma or from
consumption, or one leg of or both legs of.